| vaio said:
Speed reading it and actually reading the shit he wrote is not the same thing. If that is the case you explain to me how this could be a (and i qoute you here) : As a whole it's a fairly decent review that touches on gamemplay, length, controls, and visuals. When he starts the rewiev with: I'm not sure who I should blame for The Conduit's shortcomings. Do I blame the developer for making a rather generic shooter with a convoluted storyline that isn't as epic or mysterious as it wants to be or do I blame Nintendo for creating a console whose lack of hardware power essentially handcuffs every developer who tries to create a "next-gen" game for it? And also says this in the review: what does it say about the Wii that The Conduit doesn't blow Goldeneye's graphics out of the water the way Halo 3 outshines the original Halo or Killzone 2 completely destroys the original Killzone? Please explain how in the world the review could be fairly decent whe it starts with those two things on the first page? |
How could the Bible be a good book if I smeared feces on the cover? Well the first step to finding out is, of course, looking past the cover. Journalists often sensationalize mundane things to make them seem more than they are. By polarizing things, they attract more attention. Unlike you and other posters, I'm secure enough in my beliefs to not offended by these attempts. The first is just asking "Is HVS a mediocre developer or were they limited by the Wii's capabilities?" The point of the second that the graphics aren't jaw-dropping.
